Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by John Kim, November 01, 2003, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: MarcoAlso: The virtual vs. experiential model as the point of paradigmn clash is, perhaps, a broader expression of what happens--but if I understand you correctly the modes (and section headers) are Static vs. Collaberative (which I think might be weaker terminology than Virtual Experience vs. Collaberative Storytelling).
Quote from: MarcoFor instance, the model or "static story" is, necessiarily, incomplete as a model (and perhaps contaning paradoxical logic holes if envisioned as an immutable linear narrative)--it is therefore often subject to revision on the part of the players.This makes the exercise almost always a gradient of some sort rather than a boolean state (i.e. players are *always* collaberating with the GM in creating story--even if only by being there to play in a super-railroaded game).
Quote from: Emily CareVirtual experience roleplaying, as seen by those who see role-playing as intended to be collaborative story-telling, might look like rampant "my guy would do such-and-such"-ism: ie over-prioritizing narrow verisimilitude of character, over narrative concerns, or pure pawn play, with no consciousness of shared story.And in like manner, collaborative story-telling roleplaying could end up breaking engagement for someone who looks at the experience as something with external reality (ie that has been created by someone else) that must be experienced via through an avatar that "actually" exists in the game world. Does sounds like sim vs. nar priority conflict.
Quote from: fusangiteI'm impressed by the quality of the essay. I agree that this is a legitimate twofold division of gaming. There are, after all, many ways to divide and categorize the experience. Buying your model, though, I have some pretty immediate visceral reactions. The "virtual experience" approach strikes me more as a pathology than as a style of play. I cannot imagine actually wanting to run or participate in a game in which boundaries between players and their characters are blurred because I cannot really imagining this producing a healthy social dynamic. Am I out to lunch here or do people actually find that "virtual experience" play can function without devolving into interpersonal ugliness?
QuoteYou're right that there are ramifications to this. On the other hand, I don't think that they need to turn into interpersonal ugliness. It is perfectly possible to identify during a game, but afterwards be able to distinguish it as just a game -- just as one might feel excited during a film even though afterwards one knows it was just an illusion. This blurring of real person and character is behind most, if not all, traditional narratives. That said, it is valid to object to it. For example, Roland Barthes (a very influential figure in modern narrative theory) decries it as dishonest and authoritarian. Also, the closer dynamics of RPGs might have deeper ramifications than static narrative.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsActually, fusangite's comment illustrates something important, which has been discussed before (similarities of highly committed Simulationist play to clinical psychological conditions), and he/she admits that it's a visceral reaction. As such, it's not really a point of debate at all. "That's your visceral reaction? How interesting," is about as far as the discussion can go.
Quote from: fusangiteI guess I have a problem with the film analogy because (a) the individual did not create the character (b) the individual did not invest components of the self in the character and (c) the character does not have a continuing existence in time contingent upon its creator. I would agree that what I am talking about is a difference of degree but it seems an enormous one.I accept that, from a theoretical standpoint, virtual experience need not create uncomfortable interpersonal dynamics. I guess my question is, how often does it create this discomfort?